Truth or religion?

[Pygoscelis]

Truth, knowledge, and belief are all very different things.

I believe that truth exists independent of our perception, else I have difficulty seeing how our "worlds" could interact.

 

[samah12]

I believe that truth exists independent of our perceptionQUOTE]

Think anyone would have a hard time arguing with that!

 

[Trumble]

Beliefs should be logical and rational, and only Islam as a whole fits this criterion.

Islam doesn't even come close to either. It makes some attempt in that direction, as does much Christian theology, but the whole pseudo-logical edifice is based on a fundamental assumption, i.e the existence of God, which is unproven and, in all likelihood unprovable. Faith.

Other religions are by and large unverifiable and their respective adherents believe in them blindly.

Islam is no more verifiable than any other religion. Faith.

who performed heavenly miracles testified to by so many eye witnesses that cannot be explained away other than that they were from Allah, are obviously not based on "blind faith".

What miracles? What witnesses? Provide one piece of evidence that is remotely credible in terms of structured historical study. Faith.

If you are practicing any number of the false religions, your so called "experience" is hollow and of no peculiar substance.

Prove that one of those false religions is not yours. Faith.

But the religious experience of Islamic worship is unique in that it is true communion with Almighty Allah (Subhana wa Taala).

Who may or may not exist. Can you prove He does to any standard acceptable to someone who doesn't already believe it? In three thousand years, nobody else has. Faith.

The answering of prayers from Allah Taala and the numerous examples of faith healings and inspirational dreams which are the common religious experiences of the Believers cannot be reproduced among the disbelievers.

Give me one scientifically verifiable example of faith healing. Faith.

The disbelievers' prayers are not answered and they have no relation with Allah whatsoever

Apart from the obvious comment that disbelievers are unlikely to be praying, give me one example where it can be proven a prayer has been answered by God? Faith.

Regarding the gods and deities which the non-Muslims worship, Allah says about them:

If ye invoke them, they will not listen to your call, and if they were to listen, they cannot answer your (prayer). On the Day of Judgment they will reject your "Partnership". and none, (O man!) can tell thee (the Truth) like the One Who is acquainted with all things. (35:14)

*A small point on "if they were to listen", this is referring to those false gods which people worship who are in fact human beings or other creation of Allah which has faculty of hearing, but are still not divine or share power with Allah.

On the other hand, Allah says regarding the Believers's supplication to Him:

And your Lord says: "Call on Me; I will answer your (prayer) (40:60)

And where can I go to hear Allah say these things now? Today? Faith.

Now regarding your contention that if one particular religion is right there would only be one religion. This is an illogical and invalid argument. To any question there can be a number of given answers, but that does not mean all of the answers are correct.

An isolated contention does not constitute an argument, and so can be neither illogical or invalid. I didn't make one because I know I can't prove it.. there's faith in there too, but at least I admit it. However, I agree it does not necessarily mean that all answers are correct. Now please provide me with a valid (and sound) argument demonstrating they are not?

Islam was the original religion revealed to Adam (alaihi salaam).

Prove Adam ever existed. Faith.

On the other hand, the religious experiences of Muslims cannot be explained other than that they are from Allah.

They can be explained in precisely the same way as any other religion! FAITH!


Sure, I may have been a little over the top there but the fundamental point remains.. you aren't arguing at all, just making statements based on your own belief. "My religion is right, yours is wrong"! No argument, just statements. I don't blame you for that... nobody has ever managed to produce such an argument, but the fact remains.


Oh, what the heck, while I'm at it..

traditional Therevada Buddhism does not even believe in God or have a concept of the Divine, and therefore has no objective truth

What is your argument that a belief in God, or indeed a concept of the Divine, is necessary for objective truth?

Everything in Buddhism is subjective. Buddhism is therefore not even a religion but basically a school of psychology

That's not actually true, but I'd still like to hear your argument as to why subjectivity excludes religious status.

Any and every of the "religious experiences" its follows claim to have are nothing but psychological phenomena.

No Buddhist would deny that, although they might define psychology rather more widely than I suspect you intended. Now please prove that the Islamic, or indeed any other, religious experience is anything but a psychological phenomena.

 

[MustafaMc]

I believe that truth is highest of all, even higher than religions.

First of all, do you agree with this?

I believe that there is Absolute Truth that transcends religion; however, I also believe that from our limited human perspective we can't comprehend this Truth in It's entirety. Actually, the smallest portion of the Truth is too Great to be contained within our puny minds! Religion is not the Truth, but I believe that true religion guides human kind to the Truth. From my perspective, I believe that Islam is the true religion that guides us to the Truth that I believe is the One God, or Allah. We know Allah through His Names or Attributes, such as , The Compassionate, The Most Merciful, The Sovereign, The Holy One, The Giver of Peace, The Giver of Life, The Most High, The Mighty, The Just, The Forgiving, The Creator, The Ressurector of the Dead, The All Knowing, The All Hearing, The All Seeing, and among others Al-Haqq - The Truth.

Secondly, you may have seen people getting offended by the truth about their religion because they think truth makes their religion look bad.

Do you think it makes sense to get offended by the truth?

First define Absolute Truth that is different from above and transcends our individual perspectives. This Truth would be clearly perceptible to all and could not offend anyone. An interesting passage in the Quran 18:60-82 tells the story of Moses and another servant of Allah that Islamic tradition names as Al-Khidr. This passage illustrates the relativity of good and bad. The problem is that we can't see the "big picture" that is outside our own personal perceptions.

Also since religion is supposed to be pure with nothing bad at all, do you think you should leave the religion if you find enough evidence of wrongdoings in a religion? Now when I mention religion, it's not referring to people of the religion in general. But the founders of the religion or the main people in the religion.

No, one should not leave his religion just because there are so-called "wrongdoings", or bad people, or hypocrites that claim the same religion. One should leave his religion only if another one brings him closer to the Absolute Truth. On Judgement Day we will have to give an account of our own life and can't point to the "wrondoings" of others as the reason we did not worship the One God.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

but the whole pseudo-logical edifice is based on a fundamental assumption, i.e the existence of God, which is unproven and, in all likelihood unprovable. Faith.

It is still possible for God to exist fully and totally, even if you personally cannot prove his existence.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[snakelegs]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;


It is still possible for God to exist fully and totally, even if you personally cannot prove his existence.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

yup.

 

[Trumble]

It is still possible for God to exist fully and totally, even if you personally cannot prove his existence.

Quite true, but what I was responding to was the claim that

Beliefs should be logical and rational, and only Islam as a whole fits this criterion

When people start throwing words like 'logical' and 'rational' about, they are no longer in a world of 'personally' proving (i.e 'proving' to their own satisfaction) anything. It am quite satisfied in my own mind as to the 'truth' of the Buddha's teachings, but I would be foolish indeed to claim I can 'prove' they are true.

Just as God may exist fully and totally even if I can't personally prove it, you must acknowledge that He may not exist at all even if you can't personally prove THAT. The same is true of a 'God' in a totally different form than that accepted by the Abrahamic religions. You believe ultimately because of faith, not reason and logic - that is not to say reason and logic do not play a part in choosing and confirming beliefs.

The Islamic argument, if you wish to call it that, is debatedly valid (a Christian might not agree), in that its conclusions follow from the suggested premises, but the premises themselves are totally unsupportable and hence, in terms of 'proving' anything, so is the argument. It never ceases to baffle me that some muslims have such trouble accepting that. Christians and Buddhists don't.

 

[Malaikah]

It never ceases to baffle me that some muslims have such trouble accepting that. Christians and Buddhists don't.

That is probably because we are following the truth, and they aren't.

Yes I know, I am doing exactly the thing that baffles you, but I couldn't help it.

 

[cali dude]

This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

I was talking about the truth about the founder of a religion.

Let's say a so-called prophet or founder of a religion had done something unacceptable to people in general, e.g., having an affair.

Now this is true that the founder of the religion had an affair but people following that religion don't want us to mention this and if we do mention it, they perceive this as an attack on their religion. So, now these people prevent us from telling the truth. In other words, a religion itself has become an obstacle in path of truth. If a religion itself becomes obstacle in path of truth, I don't understand why anyone should follow that religion and we know very well that following that religion you will not be able to find the absolute truth...

 

[Talha777]

This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

I was talking about the truth about the founder of a religion.

Let's say a so-called prophet or founder of a religion had done something unacceptable to people in general, e.g., having an affair.

Now this is true that the founder of the religion had an affair but people following that religion don't want us to mention this and if we do mention it, they perceive this as an attack on their religion. So, now these people prevent us from telling the truth. In other words, a religion itself has become an obstacle in path of truth. If a religion itself becomes obstacle in path of truth, I don't understand why anyone should follow that religion and we know very well that following that religion you will not be able to find the absolute truth...

If the founder of a religion was inherently immoral, it is a sign that the religion which he or she invented is also inherently false. Take the example of Rashad Khalifa, he plead no contest to charges that he sexually assaulted one of his colleagues in an American court of law. Rashad Khalifa was the man who claimed to be a Messenger of Allah and repudiated his belief in the Sunnat. He was killed in 1990, though nobody knows who is responsible, could have been an Angel or a very brave mujahid.

 

[Trumble]

Let's say a so-called prophet or founder of a religion had done something unacceptable to people in general, e.g., having an affair.

Now this is true that the founder of the religion had an affair but people following that religion don't want us to mention this and if we do mention it, they perceive this as an attack on their religion. So, now these people prevent us from telling the truth. In other words, a religion itself has become an obstacle in path of truth. If a religion itself becomes obstacle in path of truth, I don't understand why anyone should follow that religion and we know very well that following that religion you will not be able to find the absolute truth...

Such 'truths' are of three possible types.

In the first case they might relate to an established religion, been round the block umpteen times already, and been suitably disproven, refuted or explained.

In the second case they might relate to an established religion but offer something "new". In that instance the best thing to do is wait for the Dan Brown novel. It will be just as inaccurate but will probably be a lot more entertaining to read.

In the third case they might relate to some sort of new religion or cult, in which the followers of the person concerned will initially stick their fingers in their ears saying "la-la-la" before getting bored and drifting away. Nobody else will be remotely interested.

 

[snakelegs]

This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

I was talking about the truth about the founder of a religion.

Let's say a so-called prophet or founder of a religion had done something unacceptable to people in general, e.g., having an affair.

Now this is true that the founder of the religion had an affair but people following that religion don't want us to mention this and if we do mention it, they perceive this as an attack on their religion. So, now these people prevent us from telling the truth. In other words, a religion itself has become an obstacle in path of truth. If a religion itself becomes obstacle in path of truth, I don't understand why anyone should follow that religion and we know very well that following that religion you will not be able to find the absolute truth...

why would/should a person in this position believe your "proof"? how do you prove that someone who lived centuries ago had an affair? why would you expect someone who deeply loves and respects their prophet/founder/guru to accept your version of his sins - what basically belongs in a gossip column?
to take it even further - if a founder of a religion did indeed have an affair - does this necessarily make the entire religion false?
as an agnostic i think religion may very well be an obstacle to truth - or even to god, for that matter. but not in the way you mean above.
would you believe it if someone offered you "proof" that guru nanak did something evil? would you say, "oh, i see - that means sikhism is false. thankyou for enlightening me." you don't need someone from outside your religion to throw dirt on guru nanak and furthermore, i think you would not like it very much - why do you think others would be different?
why would anyone even want to sling dirt at an important religious figure??? what would be their motive? i find it hard to believe that it would be good.

 

[One Man Army]

GurFateh

I dont think we should be trying to find faults with other religions in order to prove our own faith as correct. Let people believe what they want to believe. freedom of speech and belief. lets try looking at the good in all, in each faith, instead of what we interpretate as bad and pouncing on it in order to try proving a point.

 

[snakelegs]

GurFateh

I dont think we should be trying to find faults with other religions in order to prove our own faith as correct. Let people believe what they want to believe. freedom of speech and belief. lets try looking at the good in all, in each faith, instead of what we interpretate as bad and pouncing on it in order to try proving a point.

SSA,
yes! that's why i don't understand cali dude's point.

 

[Malaikah]

Let's say a so-called prophet or founder of a religion had done something unacceptable to people in general, e.g., having an affair.

Interesting choice- I wonder if a Christian could perhaps comment here, because I know that Christians believe their Prophets to have done some nasty things, including incest and getting drunk...

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Interesting choice- I wonder if a Christian could perhaps comment here, because I know that Christians believe their Prophets to have done some nasty things, including incest and getting drunk...

Really? Lets hear more on this.

I agree with ultimate truth :statisfie

 

[aamirsaab]

GurFateh

I dont think we should be trying to find faults with other religions in order to prove our own faith as correct. Let people believe what they want to believe. freedom of speech and belief. lets try looking at the good in all, in each faith, instead of what we interpretate as bad and pouncing on it in order to try proving a point.

We're on the same wavelength. :statisfie

 

[cali dude]

why would/should a person in this position believe your "proof"? how do you prove that someone who lived centuries ago had an affair? why would you expect someone who deeply loves and respects their prophet/founder/guru to accept your version of his sins - what basically belongs in a gossip column?
to take it even further - if a founder of a religion did indeed have an affair - does this necessarily make the entire religion false?
as an agnostic i think religion may very well be an obstacle to truth - or even to god, for that matter. but not in the way you mean above.
would you believe it if someone offered you "proof" that guru nanak did something evil? would you say, "oh, i see - that means sikhism is false. thankyou for enlightening me." you don't need someone from outside your religion to throw dirt on guru nanak and furthermore, i think you would not like it very much - why do you think others would be different?
why would anyone even want to sling dirt at an important religious figure??? what would be their motive? i find it hard to believe that it would be good.

The reason why I brought this up is that every time, I go to a religious site, they don't want to hear anything that makes somehow make the religion look bad even though it's a fact. At least on the other sites, they have this common policy that no attacks on religion or person would be accepted at all. But I do have this problem with this mentality that a truth said about a religion is considered an attack on that religion. Isn't religion supposed to be about truth? Then how come a truth about religion be an attack on religion?

But if you do quietly accept something that means we have accepted a lie, which makes us liar, as well.

Sure anybody can bring anything about any of gurus but only if they are facts. The problem I see among people of other religions is that they know for fact and yet they don't expect people to mention the facts and if someone does mention, they consider it attack on religion.

 

[snakelegs]

The reason why I brought this up is that every time, I go to a religious site, they don't want to hear anything that makes somehow make the religion look bad even though it's a fact. At least on the other sites, they have this common policy that no attacks on religion or person would be accepted at all. But I do have this problem with this mentality that a truth said about a religion is considered an attack on that religion. Isn't religion supposed to be about truth? Then how come a truth about religion be an attack on religion?

But if you do quietly accept something that means we have accepted a lie, which makes us liar, as well.

Sure anybody can bring anything about any of gurus but only if they are facts. The problem I see among people of other religions is that they know for fact and yet they don't expect people to mention the facts and if someone does mention, they consider it attack on religion.

i guess i don't understand your need to point out defects or "the real truth" about others' religions. if i had your problem, i would either decide to dismiss the whole thing and stop going to its websites, or i would look for what is good or true within its teachings. there is no need for you to accept it.
why do you feel a need to bring them "the truth" about their religion - especially if they are offended? why not let them be - we're in california, after all.

 

[north_malaysian]

Neither .... coz I'll choose God.